I would listen to this book again because I particularly enjoyed Mamet's lexicon.

What was the most compelling aspect of this narrative?

A central theme of this book is differentiating justice in regards to codified law and justice in regards to personal sentiment and compassion. Mamet seems to argue for the merits of the former. The analogy in Chapter 30 between the rules of sports and the policies of government provides a compelling discussion of this theme.

Have you listened to any of Johnny Heller’s other performances before? How does this one compare?

I have not listened to a Johnny Heller performance prior to this book. I did not enjoy Mr. Heller's narration style initially, I found it a bit raspy; however, I began to appreciate it as the book unfolded.

What’s the most interesting tidbit you’ve picked up from this book?

Also being a Chicago native myself, I enjoyed Mamet's commentary on his experiences within and near this locale.

This book was written for right-wingers who are incapable of critical thought.

What was most disappointing about David Mamet’s story?

Within the first five minutes of the book, Mamet misidentifies the Obama agenda as change for change's sake and identifies the Republican opposition as primarily concerned with justice and the welfare of all Americans. He claims all good comes from a free market, though he and we have no real knowledge of free markets in a technologically advanced society -- there are none. (We live under a corporate capitalist system in which the government stabilizes the economy to enable corporate investment.) He states, "Justice cannot be infinite," and uses this rhetorical distortion of concepts to forgive corporatist policies. He claims Bertolt Brecht chose to be a communist based on the market for his ideas. Mamet is too smart this kind of cow-flop unless he's getting weak minded.

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

David Mamet plays the passionate conservative/libatarian but for all the plaudits he sends to the so-called wealth creating rich, he seems to have been completely absent during the 2008 financial crisis.

He also missed the fact that the government support of the US auto industry helped it make its way back. His idiotic diatribe that the government didn't know anything about designing cars was embarrassing in it's lack of the reality of what happened - the companies have paid back the government and are doing fine.

He is relentless in his criticism of the left, over and over again, continuously bashing the youth of the sixties and of today. He subtly bashes Obama without once mentioning his name. .

The book was very repetitive but I stuck it out unitl the end to see if he had a plan. He didn't.

Mamet's foray into political writing is interesting, and not without its merits. He is a gifted writer and an intelligent man who has had the benefit of 60+ years of life, and much of what he has to say reflects this.

But, as Mamet admits, he is a rather new convert to conservatism, and as such, makes some of the missteps common to 'new believers.' While in many cases I agreed with Mamet's position, I often found the that the logic by which he supports his notions is fuzzy. This is not to say he's mistaken--again, I agree with many of his arguments, but were I not already predisposed toward his contention, I don't think I would be convinced. Mamet's view of conservatism seems to be one that is at times, almost unapologetically cruel, and I don't think it needs to be.

Having said this, "The Secret Knowledge" is still very much worth a listen, if not least for some insights into Mamet's own struggles with political thought and for the writing.

The narrator is very appropriate for the material, and does a good job.